Welcome to TypologyCentral

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Saw The Amazing Spider-Man. I initially considered it a "Why?" movie, as in "Why even bother remaking a movie franchise that's just 10 years old?" And that's what it ended up being, except it was better than I expected it to be. It was good, not great, and certainly not amazing, especially when pitted against Spider-Man 2, which was a work of genius at the time.

The CGI for this outing is mostly pretty good, but nothing we haven't seen before. For a movie trying to be "gritty" and "realistic," because I guess that's the fad these days, it still felt like a cartoon. The filmmakers should've drawn from Batman Begins for inspiration on how to make an essentially preposterous storyline dark and gritty, not to mention masterful. And as is, The Amazing Spider-Man, despite clearly having no relation to Sam Raimi's universe, still manages to see little change. I don't understand why they couldn't just continue Raimi's universe with some of the same actors.

Which brings me to my next point, where Tobey Maguire was a better Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield is the better Spider-Man. I loved Garfield's smart-assed interpretation of Peter's alter ego, but he simply wasn't nerdy enough to be a good Peter Parker.

Special props go to James Horner's musical score though, which seems to plagiarize Danny Elfman's scores in both Raimi's Spider-Man films and others. Although I guess it's a step up from Horner's renowned self-plagiarizing.

Episode #3 of 'The Newsroom' was much better than last week's. But they should get rid of Emily Mortimer as soon as possible.

How did you like the last two episodes from your American perspective, @DiscoBiscuit?

She is kind of one note.

Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterson have impressed me mightily. I'm interested to see where they take the show as it gets closer to real time.

Jeff's speech at the beginning was pretty good.

Edit - also the bit about the Tea Party getting co opted by the far right. That was really good and something that most people don't know or don't care about.

And this:

"The tea party is being radicalized and their original organizing principles, obliterated, and no one should be laughing anymore. They should be scared shitless. My party is being hijacked and its happening in real time."

Lastly and most importantly, the fact that it needs to be a republican pointing these things out.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
- Edmund Burke

Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterson have impressed me mightily. I'm interested to see where they take the show as it gets closer to real time.

Agreement here.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

Edit - also the bit about the Tea Party getting co opted by the far right. That was really good and something that most people don't know or don't care about.

And this:

"The tea party is being radicalized and their original organizing principles, obliterated, and no one should be laughing anymore. They should be scared shitless. My party is being hijacked and its happening in real time."

Lastly and most importantly, the fact that it needs to be a republican pointing these things out.

I expect they will use him the way they used Ainsley Hayes (Emily Procter) on 'The West Wing'.